Re: [IRCA] MORE ON KKOL

[Scott Fybush <scott@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Patrick Martin wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification. So they looked at Bainbridge. I also was
> thinking that would be a dandy site. I don't know what directional
> pattern they could have had from there though. 

They did more than look - they had a CP there. It actually wouldn't have 
been a great option, from what I can get out of FCC archive files at 
fccinfo.com. The CP was for 5 kW days/2 kW nights, using a figure-8 
pattern aimed roughly NE/SW. I'm not sure whether this CP was issued 
before the deal was struck to buy KIKN and take it dark; it's possible 
the pattern might have been let out more if KIKN weren't a factor. 
Another issue with Bainbridge is that it's only a two-tower site, which 
doesn't allow for as much shaping of a custom DA pattern for KKOL as the 
three-tower KIXI site (where KKOL had yet another CP for 35 kW day/16 kW 
night) would have provided.

There was yet another CP issued, for 50 day and night from a four-tower 
site in Kent, but there were apparently issues with ground conductivity 
there that made the site undesirable.

They've certainly sunk a lot of time and effort into keeping the station 
on the air. I hope the Tacoma site ends up being worth it!

s

_______________________________________________
IRCA mailing list
IRCA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/irca

Opinions expressed in messages on this mailing list are those of the original contributors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IRCA, its editors, publishing staff, or officers

For more information: http://www.ircaonline.org

To Post a message: irca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx